Skip to main content

No claim if death is caused by fall due to ill health

The difference between a fall due to ill health, and a genuine accidental fall, would determine whether a claim under an accident insurance policy is payable or not.

Case Study: Kishan Lal Jain suffered a fall in his bedroom on March 16, 2009, resulting in a serious head injury. He was admitted to Jaslok Hospital and kept in the ICU. The hospital had registered a medico-legal case and reported it to Gamdevi police station, which recorded his statement. Kishan Lal was discharged in two days.

On March 23, 2009, Kishan Lal had another fall at home, injuring his head once again. He was admitted to Jaslok in an unconscious state, where he expired on April 7, 2009 due to cardio-respiratory failure.

Later, in July 2009, his son Pravinkumar came across an individual personal accident insurance policy obtained by his deceased father from New India Assurance.

Pravinkumar lodged a claim under the policy. The insurance company rejected it, saying the claim had neither been filed in time nor had submitted documents showing cause of death. Then, Pravinkumar filed a complaint before the South Mumbai District Consumer Forum. He sought the insured amount along with a compensation of Rs 5 lakh for mental agony and Rs 50,000 towards costs. To bolster his case, he relied on the medical opinion of Dr M S Kamath.

The insurance company contested the case. Advocate Sapna Bhuptany argued that a claim under an accident policy could be entertained only in case of an accidental death, whereas Kishan Lal had died a natural death. The hospital case papers said the first fall was due to giddiness caused by a sudden onset of vertigo. The death summary of the second hospitalization records a repeat attack of vertigo. Medical history also reveals that Kishan Lal was suffering from diabetes and high blood pressure. He also had convulsions for which he was advised neurological evaluation and treatment through anti-epileptic drugs. The cause of death is certified as cardio-respiratory failure. There is no mention that death occurred due to any accident or head injuries.

In its judgment of March 11, 2015 delivered by S M Ratnakar for the bench, along with S G Chabukswar, the forum noted that the medical certificate did not reveal an accidental death. The forum differentiated between an accidental fall resulting in an injury, and a fall due to ill health. Accordingly, the forum dismissed the complaint.

Conclusion: If a person suffers a fall, resulting in death, due to violent, visible, and external means, it would be an accidental death, and a claim under an accident insurance policy will be payable. But if the fall is due to ill health, it would be considered a natural death.

Article referred: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/mumbai/Consumers-cannot-claim-accident-insurance-if-death-is-caused-by-fall-due-to-ill-health/articleshow/46901715.cms

Comments

Most viewed this month

Amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC explained

Cause Title :  Ganesh Prasad vs Rajeshwar Prasad, SLP (C) NO. 28377 OF 2018, Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : 14/3/2023 Corum : J. B. Pardiwala, J. Citied:  Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons and Others reported in (2009) 10 SCC 84 North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das reported in (2008) 8 SCC 511 P.A. Jayalakshmi v. H. Saradha and Others reported in (2009) 14 SCC 525 B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai and Another reported in (2000) 1 SCC 712 A.K. Gupta and Sons Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corporation reported in AIR 1967 SC 96 Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another, Civil Appeal No. 5909 of 2022 dated 01.09.2022 Firm Sriniwas Ram Kumar v. Mahabir Prasad and Others reported in AIR 1951 SC 177 G. Nagamma and Another v. Siromanamma and Another reported in (1996) 2 SCC 25 Praful Manohar Rele v. Krishnabai Narayan Ghosalkar and Others reported in (2014...

Owner of vehicle is not expected to verify the genuineness of the driving license before appointing a driver

Cause Title : Rishi Pal Singh Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 4919 Of 2022, The Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : July 26, 2022 Corum : Hemant Gupta; J., Vikram Nath; J. Background the truck owned by the appellant met with an accident. The owner deposed before the court that before employing the driver, he had taken his driving test and that he was driving the vehicle satisfactorily and  that the driver was employed with him for 3 years before the date of the accident. He produced his driving license. This was reaffirmed by the driver who deposed that the driving license was obtained from the driver and it was issued from Nagaland, but no such license was produced on record. Both the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and the High Court have held that the owner has alleged that the driver had a driving license from Nagaland but the same was not produced and therefore, the Insurance Company is entitled to recover the awarded amount...

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...